Andy Allan <gravitystorm <at> gmail.com> writes: >>Or if I might make a slightly different suggestion: keep the CC-BY-SA >>licence because that's what we have, and it's the standard adopted by >>Wikipedia and other collections of free content. > >Not a helpful suggestion.
Isn't this rather prejudging the outcome of the licence debate and vote? I would expect that keeping the existing licence will be one of the options presented. >It's been explained many times why sticking with CC-BY-SA on our >geographical data set just isn't an option. I have read the explanation but I'm not convinced. As far as I can tell the only major point is that: >OSM data is potentially in a curious unlicensed limbo at the moment, >which will not protect us if a major geodata company, for example, >decides to take our data without respecting the intent of the licence. I do not believe this scenario is at all likely, and even if it did happen it is a far lesser evil than losing big chunks of the OSM data and contributor base through a painful relicensing exercise. It is also a lesser evil than ending up with a new licence which is too restrictive and blocks reuse of the OSM data. (What 'too restrictive' means is a matter of opinion, but everyone can see that such an outcome is possible.) Further, as has been pointed out, this would be a very good outcome for OSM if it set the precedent that map data is not covered by copyright. I could start tracing in things from Ordnance Survey maps right away. Note that these maps are 'Crown Copyright', not 'Crown Database Right' or requiring you to agree to a contract or EULA to buy them. If it's good enough for the OS and their notoriously jealous legal department, it's good enough for OpenStreetMap. (The OS maps are printed maps and do not contain the OS's source database - but if the mere placement of map features is not covered by copyright, you could easily trace them and make your own independent database.) For this reason and others I do not think that any mapping agency would try to deny the enforceability of copyright and OSM's share-alike restrictions. But if they do, and it goes to court, it would be great news for OSM to lose! (If the database right can be used to patch holes in copyright's scope, then by all means do so. But there is no need to relicense to do that. The copyright licensing can continue to be done using CC-BY-SA as at present, and then the compiler of the database - which is the Foundation, not the individual contributors - can grant database right permission to those who distribute under the terms of CC-BY-SA.) -- Ed Avis <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
